Euzonoi ?

[Menander of India]

There is this unit which appears for the 1st time in Xenophon(IIRC) and he's probably been referring to light infantry in general(psiloi). However, Polybian mentions them as a unit of hybrid light infatry separate to those of peltasts and other psiloi. For example they appear in the 3rd battle of Mantineia , Selasia etc.Their armament is described as too narrow thyraioi for covering the whole body, plus spears which were not as long as pikes.He also adds that although they could skirmish successfully in a frontal fight would have been in a disadvantage. Could this be a separate unit or is just a version of Thyreophoroi? What do you think ?

[keravnos]

Can you paste in the quotes? I would love to read them...

Oh, and GREAT NICK! Menandros of India or Megas Menandros is basically the reason why I came to love the ancient world. A man who reigned long ago and became a legend in a land, far, far away, thousands of stadia from where his people came from... yep, the stuff of legend.

And for those who wonder...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menander_I

[Ravenic]

I think it's just a vague refereance to either Thoritikai, or Theuropoi. Any difference in equipment could be attributed to lack of funds, campaign duration, or any number of factors.

[paullus]

Are you sure the reference to narrow thureoi is specifically concerning the class of soldiers called euzonoi? As I recall, Polybios says that most of the Achaians fought in with thos weapons prior to the Philopoimen reform. Does he call them "euzonoi" in that passage?

But no, I wouldn't connect them with our thureophoroi, and certainly not with our thorakitai. They're probably closer to our peltastai than our thureophoroi, though its even possible he's referring to soldiers outfitted similarly to our iphikratous hoplitai (though I'm a little doubtful in that regard). we may not have a really suitable unit for that sort.

[Ravenic]

Oh, I misinterpreted then. Though, according to Polybius, I guess it specifically "was not a peltasti".

At any rate, I think it's either a wrongly-translated/interpreted historical account, or the result of some foreign auxiliary or perhaps improvised armor.

[Zarax]

IIRC they should be iphicratean hoplites unless the translated version I read screwed up...

[keravnos]

Oh, I misinterpreted then. Though, according to Polybius, I guess it specifically "was not a peltasti".

At any rate, I think it's either a wrongly-translated/interpreted historical account, or the result of some foreign auxiliary or perhaps improvised armor.

please quote the ancient greek text, if it is possible. Only then can we clarify what is going on. There have been some mis-translations lately that are really, REALLY peculiar. :inquisitive:

[I Am Herenow]

I found this: http://www.ne.jp/asahi/luke/ueda-sarson/Iphikrates2.html. Just look for the "Euzonoi" section and check the footnotes.

It might have been what Menander had read originally BTW, not sure, just Googled "Euzonoi" quickly and hey presto.

Also, I found Polybius' Histories in English and Greek here (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=Plb.+toc).

[Ravenic]

Well, i'm not the orginal poster, don't quote me :sweatdrop: